I want one good reason that being gay is ok

But that's the thing, though. It isn't true. It's false. Straight men are much, much more likely to be child molestors and pedophiles than gay men. What's special about equal rights? What rights do you think gay people want that straight people don't already have? Ok, asshole. That's fine, baby-raper.The point of those ad hominem attacks is to indicate that, in civil society, there exists such a thing as verbal violence, and people have a right not to have offensive obscenities leveled at them. I realize that your conception of personal freedom means open season on homosexuals. Thank goodness that we live in a society that disagrees.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-21-2004 03:51 AM

I've been somewhat emotionally unstable lately. For some reason, I'm not taking such ignorant bigotry as well as before. Must be all the work i've been doing with putting in wooden floor and painting walls for people. Have you checked out valid statistics first before making such a claim? Please go here. It is a pdf file. It's a gov report on sex crimes on young children.Pay close attention to the end of page 3 and page 4.Let me quote from it.Females were more than six times more likely as males to be victims of sexual assaults known to law enforement agencies.Here is a snapshot of a graph detailing the stats on sexual assault victims by gender. Here is a snapshot of a graph on female proportions in all sexual assault victims. Please check out proper statistics next time before making such a claim. Could you please name one "special" right that us homosexuals want that isn't already a given for heteros? What's your point? Again, this is not true. Homosexual behavior in animal are observed in the wild just as much as in the zoos. However, I've never used the "unnatural" argument and I kindly ask that others don't go there as well. Human moralities are not suppose to be based on animal behavior, wouldn't you agree?

---

The Laminator

​

I never understood why these topics appear on all free fora (especially religion related), when it's not their own problem?
I see no point asking "Give me one good reason why people work for microsoft?" What's the point.
I begin to suspect some strange desire to get some more information before coming out or at least a slight interest otherwise I don't understand why bothering.
The only reason I would ask why peoploe work at microsoft would be interest related as well.LucyThis message has been edited by Prince Lucianus, 07-21-2004 05:16 AM

---

Bible
Search Results
"Death & Dead" were found 827 times in 751 verses.Thats a Whole Lotta Suffering

Er, Lam, what % of the population is gay? Isn't it rather a lot less than a sixth?

Gonna disagree with you, Crash. I think that the monkey-humping, feltching pile of steaming scrotal cheese should have the right to call homosexuals "fags" if he wants. But he should also display the basic level of intelligence to know that if he does, then in return he's going to get labelled the miserable little horse-fisting spank-guzzler he is.Freedom of speech means that he gets to say whatever he wants, sure. Doesn't mean anyone has to accept what he says without pointing out what a sub-human waste of skin, blood, and hair he is.

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river the infidels shiver in the stench of belief.
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late; I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw are ringing in my ears"
-Beck

Sexual desires and sexual intercourse are natural biological functions. Just like hunger and eating. (Yes I know you can't die from not having sex. Not the point.)Abstaining from sex is more unnatural than having sex. Just like purposely abstaining from food is unnatural.My guess is that sex (all varieties) existed before religion.It existed before the large civilizations.The nature of sex hasn't changed. Mankind's rules and views concerning sex have. Cultures/individuals vary in their ideas of what is OK and not OK. As you've been shown, some cultures have no problem with homosexuals.Just like Genesis 38. Brother-in-law impregnating sister-in-law to give his dead brother an heir. Oh ick! Then the job goes to father-in-law if the others fail. Double oh ick! (Really glad they got over that) As you can see love is not a factor in this scenerio. Different culture, different rules than today.Our culture has worked to eliminate discrimination and bring equality to our diverse culture.I am more concerned about the vanishing farmland and the lack of nutrition in commercial/processed foods (which feed my natural hunger pains), than I am about what two consenting men/women do in their home or flirtations on the street (which has nothing to do with my personal survival).My daughter once asked me why some people picked on other people for being different. (In this case some girls were picking on another girl for being fat.) I told her that IMO even if we had a society where everyone was exactly the same size, shape, and color; someone would find a reason to harrass someone else. Whether clothes, money, thoughts etc.I find it interesting that Christians tout that God gave us free will because he wouldn't want robots, and yet, they feel that everyone should have blind faith without reason. Isn't that a robot?Life is too short to worry about someone elses sex life.Bottom line: This is why being gay is OK in our secular culture. Declaration of IndependenceThe Constitution PreambleAs you've shown in this thread, no one can say anything to make you personally accept homosexuality or apparently many other sex acts as OK. That is YOUR personal preference. If you enjoy your gay friends' company then enjoy their company.As I said before, the "act" is not something you have to approve of to respect the person.
Message 148Respecting a person includes respecting their right to happiness (within the law) per their preferences, not yours.Allowing same-sex civil marriages does not take away any "rights" that are currently available in civil or religious marriages of heterosexuals. I'm baffled as to your purpose in starting this thread since you apparently had no intention of accepting homosexuality as OK.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

There you go, that's one of the problems with this kind of argument. There's always an unknown factor to consider. The fact is we don't really know for sure what percentage of the population is gay.In the above post, I only wanted to refute the claim that there are more boy victims than girls.The sad but true fact is we as a country have gotten so used to sex crimes involving girls that the media have ignored most of such crimes. The ones involving little boys tend to make the headlines a lot easier. That's why people like Buz and skeptic think that boys are the only victims.

---

The Laminator

​

I actually agree with Dan on this one. People have the right to call me whatever they want, as long as it doesn't become slander.

---

The Laminator

​

But the claim was that gay men are more likely to sexually haress children than straight men - in order to establish this one way or another you'd have to compare % offences commited by gays to the % of the population that is gay.

Very well. I'll try to look for some stats on that. I doubt that there's any, since we don't really know how many gay men there are.

---

The Laminator

​

Just a darn minute. According to logic, the burden of proof always falls on the side that claims the positive. In this case, buz and skeptic are the ones that have to prove that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles. Why the hell am I trying to do all the work for them?It's like me losing my hair trying to prove that there's no such thing as a green goblin after buz and skeptic claimed that there are green goblins running around.Hey buz and skeptic, could you provide some kind of evidence to back up your claim?

---

The Laminator

​

The Declaration of independance does not make it ok.Brother-in-law screwing sister-in-law, in the OT is OK, because they has to carry on the human race. So there was a good reason for it. They weren't doing it because they wanted to. What if your sister-in-law was a big, fat, ugly, unattractive to you pig, that you didn't want to screw?The Constitution does not clear things up either.I really don't consider 2 guys, or girls getting together in a union, a real marriage. It is not a traditional marraige. They had to change the definition of marriage to make it one.The part I love most about this thread is how everyone keeps saying that I never intended on accepting it in the first place. Like all of you have a crystal ball, and can see what I'm up to.All of you here saying that, are very judgemental and are much worse off than me. At least I tried to change, or find a reason too.
I even at one point started to accept that people are born gay, but I have changed my stance back because, it was never proven anywhere, that people are born gay.It is also funny how people hate me because I don't agree with gay sex, or consider them to be married.
I don't hate them, because they don't believe in God, or live thier lives the way they do.So whos the screwd up one?Being for or against gay marriage is a personal preference that I am entitiled too. I am NOT violating anyones rights, because I wouldn't mind a seperate thing that would allow gay people to have the same legal union as straight people. I just don't want it to be called a marriage, that is important to me.Yet everyone here has me all figured out.Basically I believe now, after going through all this thread (I have learned some things from it) that the only sex that would appear to be ok, IMO is the kind that leads to reproduction of a our species. All other sex, is just mearly man trying to please himself. I am guilty of it too. So I really don't have to think that gay sex is ok, because its not. Neither is the sex I have anymore. But I don't stop having sex, and I will not stop gay people from having sex either. I will answer to the one I believe in for my actions.If people don't like me because of what I believe in, then they are the ones with the problem, not I.I haven't even read the last 100 posts, because I'm sure its all the same crap. I'm sure all the same people are going to try and turn around what I just said to justify what they believe in too. But its all non-sense.I also must say that the jury is not out on my beliefs. I retain the right to change my mind should I find a good reason too, or discover that I am an ass. Anything is possible, I do not hold myself so high in the air, that you can see up my skirt, lol.I am done with this topic, real life is way to busy, and time is limited to be on forums, so peace.

He means that statistics lie.

Wow...this entire post was just beautiful. I don't think I've seen one this well written out yet. Of course, I doubt these pricks will listen to it, but oh well. *heads over to the post of the month to nominate it*

Hi, Riverrat! Can you tell us why homosexuality has anything to do with morality one way or the other yet?(Question to Admins: How many times does someone have to completely ignore a direct question before they're in violation of the forum rules?)

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river the infidels shiver in the stench of belief.
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late; I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw are ringing in my ears"
-Beck